Termination under §§ 19b(3)(g) & (j); Children’s best interests

The court held that the trial court did not commit error requiring reversal when it concluded that termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights to her children (AS-1 and AS-2) was in their best interests. The DHHS presented evidence that AS-1 did not have a bond with respondent. It also presented evidence that respondent had not provided AS-1 with stability or permanency. Further, it presented evidence that she had not provided AS-2 permanency or stability. It presented evidence that the aunt’s home had advantages over respondent’s home. The DHHS also presented evidence that she failed to comply with her service plan. Further, it “presented evidence that AS-1 was doing well in her aunt’s care and had been in her aunt’s care for an extended period of time.” In addition, “the trial court considered the fact that AS-1 was placed with a relative and the possibility of a guardianship rather than termination. However, the trial court ultimately determined that termination of [respondent’s] parental rights was in AS-1’s best interests because of AS-1’s need for permanency and stability and [respondent’s] inability to provide permanence and stability.” The DHHS presented evidence that she did not comply with her service plan. Also, “the trial court considered the fact that AS-2 was placed with a relative and the possibility of guardianship as opposed to termination.” Reviewing the record, the court was not left with a “definite and firm conviction that the lower court made a mistake” in determining that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in AS-2’s best interests. Affirmed.